Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Protests Trump likes and doesn't like

Protests Trump likes and doesn't like
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2017, 05:37 PM
 
Apologies this thread might be a little muddled because I can't quite pin down what I'm trying to say (or there are several semi-connected things but I can't quite connect them).

To put it flatly, a month ago the President called neo-nazis, white supremacists and nationalists "fine people" A day or two ago, he called some NFL players that protest peacefully "a son of a bitch". He's more concerned about respecting the flag than respecting people of all races.

And his thin skin seems all the thinner when the person making the critique is of color. Merck's CEO left one of his council's over his Charlottesville response and got blasted on twitter. A lot of other's left the council but no one else got the same personalized thrashing.

Miss Texas criticized Trump's Charlottesville response in answer on national tv. Didn't see him call her out. Meanwhile, Steph Curry decided not to go to the WH and Trump 'rescinded' the invitation, as if it was an obligation.

He's a man who will pardon a man convicted civil and criminal contempt of court because of his racial profiling policies, yet will call for the job of a high profile person who criticizes him in their personal twitter account.

What do you make of this?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2017, 06:29 PM
 
Most of it is just distraction. Trump is a piece of shit anyway. Always was, always will be.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 07:43 AM
 
The NFL players made a big mistake to become political. They have lost half of their fans. I'm really sick of the lefts continual tantrum. That makes them look petty and stupid.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 08:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The NFL players made a big mistake to become political. They have lost half of their fans. I'm really sick of the lefts continual tantrum. That makes them look petty and stupid.
What tantrums are you referring to, exactly? Are protests against police brutality simply a temper tantrum?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 09:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The NFL players made a big mistake to become political. They have lost half of their fans.
[citation needed]
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The NFL players made a big mistake to become political. They have lost half of their fans. I'm really sick of the lefts continual tantrum. That makes them look petty and stupid.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
[Bing it yourself ]
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 11:58 AM
 
The NFL rule regarding the National Anthem.
The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league’s game operations manual, according to a league source. It states:

“The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.

“During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The NFL players made a big mistake to become political. They have lost half of their fans. I'm really sick of the lefts continual tantrum. That makes them look petty and stupid.
Yeah. How dare those people who play sports have political opinions! It makes me sad that this upsets you. Maybe they should not be voting either.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The NFL rule regarding the National Anthem.
What's your argument here?
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 12:06 PM
 
Trump doesn't really like or dislike these protests. He simply noticed that a remark he made in a speech went down better with the his otherwise bored audience than his other comments, latched on to it and ramped up the rhetoric as the applause got louder.

If the polar opposite view produced applause next week, he'd go with that. He doesn't care either way about any of it. He only cares that it feels like people love him.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Yeah. How dare those people who play sports have political opinions! It makes me sad that this upsets you. Maybe they should not be voting either.
So if your job is to play football and win games and accumulate fans because of it, Why did they use their high paying jobs to become political and cut the number of fans in half? Seem smart to you?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So if your job is to play football and win games and accumulate fans because of it, Why did they use their high paying jobs to become political and cut the number of fans in half? Seem smart to you?
Until you show proof it's your OPINION stated as FACT.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 02:28 PM
 


Pentagon telling Trump he's on his own.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 03:44 PM
 
Trump seems to have misjudged quite badly this time. I'm some some of his supporters stick with him, but he's just some D-bag politician who'll be around for 8 years tops. Your team is your team for life right?

I'm seeing many more come out in favour of the freedom to protest. Even the Nascar guys are siding with the NFL teams so far. Be real interested to see his next approval rating. New record I'd bet.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 03:49 PM
 
Interestingly, I saw somewhere that they only started requiring the patriotic lineup during the anthem in 2009, as part of a military enlistment program. Before then, the teams ran out after the anthem?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 04:15 PM
 
Military paid them to appear patriotic. Inadvertently have now given people a platform to make statements. Pretty awesome.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Until you show proof it's your OPINION stated as FACT.
Oh shit.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Until you show proof it's your OPINION stated as FACT.
Missed this, but this was brilliant!

It's telling that we've all been here long enough that we can do really good impersonations of each other.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 11:59 AM
 
I'm not doing an impression, I'm trying to speak his language. His claim is wild and if it were true I think it'd be on the front page of every sports site.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 03:31 PM
 
Sounds to me like you were mocking him. Reported.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 03:45 PM
 
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...74199036542980

Peaceful protests are a hallmark of our democracy. Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 03:46 PM
 
"Can I have that second scoop of ice cream now, General Kelly?"
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 10:10 AM
 
"They say, 'We are in a situation where we have to do something,' " Trump said in an interview broadcast Thursday on Fox & Friends. "I think they're afraid of their players, you want to know the truth."
That's one hell of a dog whistle.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 12:35 PM
 
Can I ask.....

If it's not OK for the Google engineer to express his political views at work, what makes it ok for NFL players to do so?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 12:36 PM
 
Perhaps it would be different if an NFL player wrote a memo saying that white people shouldn't play football because it was in their biological nature to suck at it?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Can I ask.....

If it's not OK for the Google engineer to express his political views at work, what makes it ok for NFL players to do so?
What do you mean by OK? It isn't against the law to express political views in a workplace, it's just that the employer can take action they feel is best for the business. Trump is calling for the NFL owners to do the same, but many are not heeding his advice. It's smart of them to do this too, because denying the players their sense of moral obligation will impact their performance in a negative way.

If you are black chances are you have been impacted directly because of your race, or are close to people that have been, and in many cases not just a little thing here and there either. Racism is a very big and ugly thing, and I would hope you wouldn't assign it equivalence to men having to deal with hiring female engineers?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What do you mean by OK? It isn't against the law to express political views in a workplace, it's just that the employer can take action they feel is best for the business. Trump is calling for the NFL owners to do the same, but many are not heeding his advice. It's smart of them to do this too, because denying the players their sense of moral obligation will impact their performance in a negative way.
So if the owners started firing the players, you would fully support this action and oppose those who protest it?

Republicans are denied their sense of moral obligation @ google yet this somehow is different. I am trying to figure out why. The obvious answer to me is that the driving motivations are drawn accross partisan lines, and "appropriate behavior" is determined by the content of what you're saying, not some framework of when and how it's appropriate to express those views. In other words, I see a huge double standard here.

If you are black chances are you have been impacted directly because of your race, or are close to people that have been, and in many cases not just a little thing here and there either. Racism is a very big and ugly thing, and I would hope you wouldn't assign it equivalence to men having to deal with hiring female engineers?
Regardless of the subject at hand, the "rules" must be the same accross the board. It seems to me that many who opposed the Google engineer speaking out at work on the basis of it not being appropriate to the job are supporting the NFL players doing the exact same thing. I am just trying to get to the bottom of what the "rules" actually are for this kind of thing, because it seems those "rules" are being applied differently based on the views being expressed.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 01:00 PM
 
People defend free speech along partisan lines. There.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Perhaps it would be different if an NFL player wrote a memo saying that white people shouldn't play football because it was in their biological nature to suck at it?
Pretty much sums it all up right there.

OAW
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
People defend free speech along partisan lines. There.
This has nothing to do with free speech. No one is saying the NFL players don't have a right to say what they're saying. The discussion is around whether or not it's appropriate and what the consequences of that speech in their workplace should be.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Perhaps it would be different if an NFL player wrote a memo saying that white people shouldn't play football because it was in their biological nature to suck at it?
First off, Google memo guy's memo said nothing of the sort.

Second:
If the NFL instituted policies to reduce the race gap (as of 2014 it's 68% black to 28% white), would you support those policies like you do with the gender gap @ Google? Equality is equality, after all.

Like the gender gap @ google, should we support policies to make it easier for white players to play on teams at the expense of black people since they are overrepresented?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
This has nothing to do with free speech. No one is saying the NFL players don't have a right to say what they're saying. The discussion is around whether or not it's appropriate and what the consequences of that speech in their workplace should be.
Appropriate is concern trolling. I listen to appropriate from people who don't have a horse in the race.

Discussing what their consequences should be is hilarious. This implies they did something wrong, which the NFL has already said they didn't. Owners have, at worst, condoned their actions. Now, I welcome people telling the NFL how this makes them feel and/or boycotting, but discussing consequences is sort of like someone coming up to me and saying we should discuss how to punish my kid for doing something that person didn't approve of.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 01:37 PM
 
I read google guy's memo. Pretty much the gist that women are good at feelings not coding. He should have posted that on his personal blog.

As for enforcing equality... there are women coders out there who are good at their jobs, but due to mentalities like that guys, it's harder to get the opportunity. Enforcing equality no. Opening the door to opportunity, yes. Encouraging more girls, that yes they CAN do that, yes.

Unlike the Kim whatserface situation, this is not a case of the players abusing their job to deny people rights. It's 3 minutes kneeling before a football game.

back to my coding, now.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Appropriate is concern trolling. I listen to appropriate from people who don't have a horse in the race.

Discussing what their consequences should be is hilarious. This implies they did something wrong, which the NFL has already said they didn't. Owners have, at worst, condoned their actions. Now, I welcome people telling the NFL how this makes them feel and/or boycotting, but discussing consequences is sort of like someone coming up to me and saying we should discuss how to punish my kid for doing something that person didn't approve of.
I am simply trying to apply the same set of rules that we did for the Google situation to this one. There is a lack of consistency in the arguments that I am trying to address.

Again, if it's not racism, how do you explain the race gap in professional sports?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I read google guy's memo. Pretty much the gist that women are good at feelings not coding. He should have posted that on his personal blog.
As should the NFL players, no?? Or is there a different set of standards there.

As for enforcing equality... there are women coders out there who are good at their jobs, but due to mentalities like that guys, it's harder to get the opportunity. Enforcing equality no. Opening the door to opportunity, yes. Encouraging more girls, that yes they CAN do that, yes.
The same can be said for white guys in the NFL.

Also, define "encouraging".

Unlike the Kim whatserface situation, this is not a case of the players abusing their job to deny people rights.
So people should speak their politicals views in the workplace and the employers should accept that? Or no? I am confused because the logic applied is different from one scenario to another.

It's 3 minutes kneeling before a football game.
Doesn't matter the content of the speech. It's either OK or it's not. In the Google scenario, it was not. In the NFL scenario, it's fine?

Or do we measure the appropriateness of political speech by it's content and whether or not we agree with what they're saying?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 01:59 PM
 
It's not the speaking (or the kneeling) it's the effect. Kim was refusing to obey laws and issue licenses. She literally did not do her job. She ignored law. The football players went on to play football. They did their job and broke no law.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I am simply trying to apply the same set of rules that we did for the Google situation to this one. There is a lack of consistency in the arguments that I am trying to address.

Again, if it's not racism, how do you explain the race gap in professional sports?
I like how you ignore my response and just change the question.

The only difference I see is one company thought the exercise of speech impacted its employees and other didn't.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
It's not the speaking (or the kneeling) it's the effect. Kim was refusing to obey laws and issue licenses. She literally did not do her job. She ignored law. The football players went on to play football. They did their job and broke no law.
I am not referencing Kim. I have no problem there.

I am referencing Google memo guy. He went on to do his job, and broke no law. I am asking what the standard is for whether or not political speech is appropriate in the workplace. It seems the rules are different depending on which way the content of your speech leans, and I am hoping you or anyone can explain to me why I am perceiving that if it's not true.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 02:05 PM
 
Is the argument that companies should treat popular and unpopular speech in the same manner?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I like how you ignore my response and just change the question.
You ignored my question in the first place,

I'll try to answer you more directly:

but discussing consequences is sort of like someone coming up to me and saying we should discuss how to punish my kid for doing something that person didn't approve of.
Where was this sentiment in the Google memo guy thread?


The only difference I see is one company thought the exercise of speech impacted its employees and other didn't.[/QUOTE]

So would you support the NFL if they started firing players for kneeling?

I also don't think you can claim the NFL doesn't think this impacts their business. They are now under very public scrutiny from both sides, and are fearful that any response would impact their business more and alienate one side or the other, and is in a lose/lose right now with any action or even inaction.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Is the argument that companies should treat popular and unpopular speech in the same manner?
In a manner, yes. "Popular or unpopular" with whom? Companies should treat their employees the same regardless of their political views.

It's either appropriate to speak your political views at (non-related) work or it's not. If you advocate firing republicans for expressing republican views at their jobs, you should do the same for democrats at theirs. No?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 02:24 PM
 
I completely understand the impulse to just stay off the field.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 02:42 PM
 
Alright this has surpassed my ability for quality replies on a phone by a large margin
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
First off, Google memo guy's memo said nothing of the sort.

Second:
If the NFL instituted policies to reduce the race gap (as of 2014 it's 68% black to 28% white), would you support those policies like you do with the gender gap @ Google? Equality is equality, after all.

Like the gender gap @ google, should we support policies to make it easier for white players to play on teams at the expense of black people since they are overrepresented?
Great question!

A few differences to note.

The NFL players are protesting against, among other things, the state of racial relations in the United States. AFAIK they're not protesting against their direct employers or the NFL.

Google Memo Guy was protesting directly against his employer, Google's, policies.

So right off the bat, that's a pretty big difference. I can walk around my company talking about how much Obama or Trump or my state's governor sucks. That's poor form but it's fine. But if I walk around my company (or post publicly to my company's discussion forum) about how much the company and its leadership sucks, that's something different. I would expect to get pulled into a meeting with HR. Right?

Regarding whether the NFL should institute race quotas similar to many companies' reactions to the gender gap - I'd wager that in sports, you have really good stats. Like reeeeally good. You have every player's every move on camera. You know their 40 time, their rushing yards, their tackles, assists, and more. Though there are soft skills and internal politics involved, the hiring, promotion, and retention process ends up being extremely quantitative and objective. You make plays, you get paid.

High-level white collar work is a bit different. Performance measures aren't so objective. AFAIK there's no standardized coding speed test that programmers take to measure themselves. Soft skills matter more, and the hiring/firing process is much more subjective. Men and women in tech and in leadership positions are treated differently. The hiring and promotion processes are not fair and unbiased. We've been socialized with a lot of perceptions about gender, and those perceptions creep in whether we want them to or not.

http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/perfor...w-gender-bias/
This kind of negative personality criticism—watch your tone! step back! stop being so judgmental!—shows up twice in the 83 critical reviews received by men. It shows up in 71 of the 94 critical reviews received by women.
Especially interesting is the section that breaks down responses by political identification:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/...gender-matter/
When gender and partisanship are both taken into account, the differences become sharper. Among Republican men, 27% say that men make better political leaders than women. Only 1% of Republican men say that women make better leaders than men. Republican women also lean toward men, though less heavily so: 17% say that men make better political leaders than women, while 4% say women make better leaders than men.

The gender gap is smaller among Democrats. Equal shares of Democratic men and women say that women make better political leaders than men (16%). Among Democratic men, 11% say men make better political leaders than women. Some 8% of Democratic women say the same.
(FWIW IMO the question is dumb and if you have a strong opinion either way it's probably a result of your internal bias and not based on any quantitative measure)

Personality traits seen as positive leadership traits in male leaders are seen as negative, abrasive traits in females.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3030754/...o-comes-out-on
As people of either gender, we are predisposed to “role congruity.” Research suggests the primitive part of our brain is thrown into conflict when confronted by a woman in charge–which may result in a flip of the adjective from assertive to pushy.
When hiring and promotion are reliant on subjective measures, women are less likely to succeed.
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml
Among musicians who auditioned in both blind and non-blind auditions, about 28.6 percent of female musicians and 20.2 percent of male musicians advanced from the preliminary to the final round in blind auditions. When preliminary auditions were not blind, only 19.3 percent of the women advanced, along with 22.5 percent of the men.
Regarding racial quotas, a pretty famous study:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf
After responding to 1,300 ads with more than 5,000 resumes, the researchers found that the job applicants with white names needed to send 10 resumes to get one callback, but the black candidate needed to send 15 for one.

It didn’t matter whether the employer was a federal contractor or was described as an "equal opportunity employer," as those also discriminated like the others.

"We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names," their paper states. "These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market."
I know you've been a bit incredulous about "encouraging" women in tech or leadership roles, especially ones that are traditionally male-dominated. I hope the aforementioned articles help paint a picture demonstrating that today's hiring practices are not egalitarian. "Why don't we just hire the best person for the job" doesn't work when an assertive woman that would be great for the job is discounted because she's perceived as abrasive or bossy. Or when simply having the name "Jamal" makes a person 33% less likely to get a callback on an otherwise identical resume.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 08:24 PM
 
The shorter version is that the NFL's desire for the best athletes it can get, because of the money they can make from them eclipsed the question of racial prejudice a long time ago. More than a generation ago in fact. Consequently, with race bias no longer a factor, the current imbalance is what you get. In a fair marketplace for football players, you get a 70/30 split or whatever the stat was. Now this may change again when the rest of the culture eventually catches up, but it will be because more potential black players will choose to more academic career paths instead, rather than being as reliant as I assume they are on scholarships at the moment. That said, maybe there will be even more black players because fewer will join gangs or end up in prisons when there is social and economic equality between the races.

While it may appear that Google provides a fair marketplace that doesn't discriminate against women, society does not. Gender bias begins before birth in many cases and women are constantly, often subconsciously encouraged away from STEM, and towards what are still considered more feminine subjects and careers. Once this bias is gone, the split among coders may or may not be 50/50, but it will be closer to it. We are still in a phase where even Google has to take actions to preserve the fair market it has tried to create at the top of the field, by sacking misogynist assholes who feel so strongly they have to share their ass-backward, douchebag ideas with other people.

Many biases are as traditional as religions and as such are self-perpetuating. This is why we have to take conscious actions to correct for them until the social traditions become non-biased.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 09:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Great question!

A few differences to note.

The NFL players are protesting against, among other things, the state of racial relations in the United States. AFAIK they're not protesting against their direct employers or the NFL.
Good for them! They ought to demand their employers practice what they preach.
Google Memo Guy was protesting directly against his employer, Google's, policies.
Since a race gap exists in the NFL, so are those kneeling for the flag.

So right off the bat, that's a pretty big difference.
I disagree.
I can walk around my company talking about how much Obama or Trump or my state's governor sucks. That's poor form but it's fine. But if I walk around my company (or post publicly to my company's discussion forum) about how much the company and its leadership sucks, that's something different. I would expect to get pulled into a meeting with HR. Right?
Likely!

Regarding whether the NFL should institute race quotas similar to many companies' reactions to the gender gap - I'd wager that in sports, you have really good stats. Like reeeeally good. You have every player's every move on camera. You know their 40 time, their rushing yards, their tackles, assists, and more. Though there are soft skills and internal politics involved, the hiring, promotion, and retention process ends up being extremely quantitative and objective. You make plays, you get paid.
So what you're intimating here is that the race gap is not actually rooted in racism, but perhaps preferential, biological, and/or cultural differences among the demographics?

What a novel concept.

High-level white collar work is a bit different. Performance measures aren't so objective.
How is it that company performance isn't an extremely objective measure?

AFAIK there's no standardized coding speed test that programmers take to measure themselves.
No but there is this thing called success in the marketplace that generally is a pretty good indicator of a group's collective abilities.

Soft skills matter more, and the hiring/firing process is much more subjective. Men and women in tech and in leadership positions are treated differently. The hiring and promotion processes are not fair and unbiased. We've been socialized with a lot of perceptions about gender, and those perceptions creep in whether we want them to or not.
I feel like there's an attempt here and now to socialize a perception that the gender gap is attributable strictly to discrimination, where the race gap in the NFL, since it can be explained objectively by statistics, is not. If only some guy would write a memo about how we ought to try to discover objective standards for explaining the gender gap. It works for explaining the race gap in the NFL, why wouldn't it work here?

This article only demonstrates the gender gap, and uses supposition to conclude it's attributable strictly to discrimination.

I posit it would be more useful to define and conduct a study that explains the root causes of the differences collected in this article. I'm not stating any conclusion here, just that your explanation only empirically identifies the discrepancy - it doesn't explain it.

Especially interesting is the section that breaks down responses by political identification:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/...gender-matter/
Indeed this is interesting polling data.

I have some questions about the framing, however.

(FWIW IMO the question is dumb and if you have a strong opinion either way it's probably a result of your internal bias and not based on any quantitative measure)
In almost every case the vast majority of the answers were "equal", so at least we have that going for us. Agreed.

Personality traits seen as positive leadership traits in male leaders are seen as negative, abrasive traits in females.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3030754/...o-comes-out-on
This article reads as just a number of C-level's opinions on the matter, and doesn't really give me the empirical data I am comfortable using to form a conclusion.

When hiring and promotion are reliant on subjective measures, women are less likely to succeed.
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml
This is a 16 year old anecdote.

Regarding racial quotas, a pretty famous study:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf
It's only problem is it's age. Attitudes shift pretty quickly on long time-scales, and 14 years is long enough to draw up new numbers and check for progress.

Gay marriage was also heavily opposed by the majority in 2003.


I know you've been a bit incredulous about "encouraging" women in tech or leadership roles, especially ones that are traditionally male-dominated.
I feel like "encouraging" is a euphemism for something, so I'd really like to understand what is meant by "encouragement" before I can be anything but incredulous about it.

I hope the aforementioned articles help paint a picture demonstrating that today's hiring practices are not egalitarian.
Well, in two cases "decades ago, before STEM was in it's infancy".

Beyond that, however, indeed you have demonstrated that the data supports your assertion that hiring practices are not strictly egalitarian in the 50/50 sense. What you have not done is explained why it appears not to be egalitarian or proven what the driving mechanism of that disparity is. There is a jump from that to "it's for sure discrimination" because you have not 1) Proven the causative factor to be discrimination

and 2) ruled out other potential driving factors such as demographically divergent preferences, social pressures beyond discrimination, sociological tendencies, etc etc.


"Why don't we just hire the best person for the job" doesn't work when an assertive woman that would be great for the job is discounted because she's perceived as abrasive or bossy.
Is she discounted, or is the fact that 9/10 people applying are male due to a lack of female applicants/preference and the odds are now 1/10 that's she's objectively the best person for the job?

Or when simply having the name "Jamal" makes a person 33% less likely to get a callback on an otherwise identical resume.
in 2001 (likely the polls were done well before the date of the study's release, also). Is it not possible we've progressed as we have with things like gay marriage?

thanks for the great post
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 09:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The shorter version is that the NFL's desire for the best athletes it can get, because of the money they can make from them eclipsed the question of racial prejudice a long time ago. More than a generation ago in fact. Consequently, with race bias no longer a factor, the current imbalance is what you get.
If this was the case, wouldn't you expect that the distribution would reflect the population? Or are you saying black people are better athletes and therefore inherently different than white folks?
In a fair marketplace for football players, you get a 70/30 split or whatever the stat was. Now this may change again when the rest of the culture eventually catches up, but it will be because more potential black players will choose to more academic career paths instead, rather than being as reliant as I assume they are on scholarships at the moment. That said, maybe there will be even more black players because fewer will join gangs or end up in prisons when there is social and economic equality between the races.
Yeah, if it's already 68% and well outperforming white people in terms of roster spots, perhaps there is a difference there worth exploring or at least explaining.

While it may appear that Google provides a fair marketplace that doesn't discriminate against women, society does not.
So why is this then held against the employees of google?
Gender bias begins before birth in many cases and women are constantly, often subconsciously encouraged away from STEM, and towards what are still considered more feminine subjects and careers. Once this bias is gone, the split among coders may or may not be 50/50, but it will be closer to it. We are still in a phase where even Google has to take actions to preserve the fair market it has tried to create at the top of the field, by sacking misogynist assholes who feel so strongly they have to share their ass-backward, douchebag ideas with other people.
I agree here wholeheartedly. I just think we can't label people misogynist assholes simply because the distributions don't line up 50/50 - we've got to identify what's causing that - not just assume mysogynist assholes must be mysogynating.

Many biases are as traditional as religions and as such are self-perpetuating. This is why we have to take conscious actions to correct for them until the social traditions become non-biased.
But we've not really empirically identified the biases, just found a few cases and assumed entire statistical trends must be explained by the biases. This is not a scientific approach, which is what I believe is needed here to really solve the problem and explain the discrepancies.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 11:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If this was the case, wouldn't you expect that the distribution would reflect the population? Or are you saying black people are better athletes and therefore inherently different than white folks?
Isn't there a similar bias in athletics these days? Certainly most of the fastest runners for years now seem to be black. I'm guessing running helps in football but there must be other aspects at work too. Some of the bigger guys aren't gonna be that fast.
Heavyweight boxing is another sport black men do well in. Perhaps some of those physical characteristics also help when it comes to football? I don't know the sport that well.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Yeah, if it's already 68% and well outperforming white people in terms of roster spots, perhaps there is a difference there worth exploring or at least explaining.
See above.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
So why is this then held against the employees of google?
Google can only control its section of society. It has to create equality on paper before there can be equality in practice. Sending sexist memos creates a hostile, toxic environment for women. Its a deterrent. No-one wants to go to work when work makes them feel like shit. Google also wants to be a nice place to work I suspect. For everyone. To achieve both these goals, the misogynists have to go. When everything is genuinely more equal, maybe they can come back and there will simply be more heated arguments. As long as no-one comes to blows and it doesn't impact anybody's work, no problem.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I agree here wholeheartedly. I just think we can't label people misogynist assholes simply because the distributions don't line up 50/50 - we've got to identify what's causing that - not just assume mysogynist assholes must be mysogynating.
The 'natural' split might be 60/40 or 70/30, the ladies might surprise us and it will be one of those in their favour. The causes happen much earlier in life.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
But we've not really empirically identified the biases, just found a few cases and assumed entire statistical trends must be explained by the biases. This is not a scientific approach, which is what I believe is needed here to really solve the problem and explain the discrepancies.
Theres a lot going on at the moment around the ideas of raising children without gender biases. It would likely drive you mad. Its difficult to even realise when you're doing it, but painting a nursery pink or blue, buying clothes in those colours, giving girls dolls and boys fire trucks, calling them slugger or sweetheart. These are all gender biases. Do all of these affect what career you end up with? Probably not, but its a slippery slope to buying toy guns and easy bake ovens, to have one play football and the other do ballet. It could be as simple as girls getting almost zero encouragement to do maths or chemistry because their parents encourage them to learn how to cook and see and to get married and have babies instead. Or to be less blatant, they are encouraged to do biology and geography, to be nurses instead of doctors perhaps? Some of these are old school and already don't really apply any more, but I suspect there are paces in the US where they are still very current thinking among certain communities. You see what I mean at any rate.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2017, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Isn't there a similar bias in athletics these days? Certainly most of the fastest runners for years now seem to be black. I'm guessing running helps in football but there must be other aspects at work too. Some of the bigger guys aren't gonna be that fast.
Heavyweight boxing is another sport black men do well in. Perhaps some of those physical characteristics also help when it comes to football? I don't know the sport that well.
Case in point. Different demographics express differently in sociological distributions. We have no trouble acknowledging that in the NFL to explain the race gap, but are not willing to do the same for the gender gap in STEM?
Google can only control its section of society. It has to create equality on paper before there can be equality in practice.
The problem is that their approach to "equality on paper" does not translate to equality in practice.
Sending sexist memos creates a hostile, toxic environment for women.
I object that you describe the memo as sexist.
Its a deterrent. No-one wants to go to work when work makes them feel like shit. Google also wants to be a nice place to work I suspect.
Only for people on the left, apparently. Even if that means ascribing to ideology over empirical data.

For everyone.
Even those with differing viewpoints? I think we can safely say this is not the case.

To achieve both these goals, the misogynists have to go.
You haven't identified any misogynists. It's an abstract boogeyman with isolated cases being used as an explanation for the sociological distributions without understanding what is actually driving those distributions.

When everything is genuinely more equal, maybe they can come back and there will simply be more heated arguments. As long as no-one comes to blows and it doesn't impact anybody's work, no problem.
Again, apply this line of thinking to the NFL's race gap. It doesn't work.


The 'natural' split might be 60/40 or 70/30, the ladies might surprise us and it will be one of those in their favour. The causes happen much earlier in life.
Agreed this is a place we could look to help explain the distributions and perceived gaps.


Theres a lot going on at the moment around the ideas of raising children without gender biases. It would likely drive you mad. Its difficult to even realise when you're doing it, but painting a nursery pink or blue, buying clothes in those colours, giving girls dolls and boys fire trucks, calling them slugger or sweetheart.
I think it's absolutely insane. We should be celebrating our differences, not pretending they don't exist and censoring all indications of them.

These are all gender biases. Do all of these affect what career you end up with? Probably not,
I would say they probably do. Is that a bad thing?

but its a slippery slope to buying toy guns and easy bake ovens, to have one play football and the other do ballet. It could be as simple as girls getting almost zero encouragement to do maths or chemistry because their parents encourage them to learn how to cook and see and to get married and have babies instead. Or to be less blatant, they are encouraged to do biology and geography, to be nurses instead of doctors perhaps? Some of these are old school and already don't really apply any more, but I suspect there are paces in the US where they are still very current thinking among certain communities. You see what I mean at any rate.
I agree with your assessment here, and only urge that society does more empirical research so that we're not basing policy on supposition and conjecture.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2017, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Until you show proof it's your OPINION stated as FACT.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/29/nf...them-protests/
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:41 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,